The court’s power to overturn the decisions of insolvency practitioners in a company’s external administration was highlighted in the recent case of Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (Proof of Debt) [2021] FCA 1061 (Tuscan).

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Federal Court where a company was found to be ‘insolvent’ for the purposes of assessing breach and termination of a contract, despite its subsequent survival and ongoing trading.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has recently handed down its decision in proceedings (“Arrium Proceedings”) brought by a number of lenders against former officers and employees of Arrium Limited and its subsidiaries (“Arrium”).

Introduction

Justice Ball’s landmark decision¹ dismissing the lenders’ claims addressed various important issues that often arise when a borrower is facing financial distress in Australia, including:

The following company law cases have been reported in CCH Pinpoint:

Directors’ duties: director breaches multiple duties by causing companies to provide security for unrelated parties

This week’s TGIF looks at In the matter of Gary John Anderson in his capacity as liquidator of G & G Contractors Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 1185, the latest of a line of Federal Court decisions confirming the approach to be taken by liquidators of trustee companies that have ceased to be trustees as a result of going into liquidation.

Key Takeaways

In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.

Full Court of Federal Court rebuts presumption of advancement – Commissioner of Taxation v Bosanac [2021] FCAFC 158

Introduction

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has set a low water mark in rebutting the presumption of advancement. The decision has significant implications for professionals and businesspeople who have structured their affairs for asset protection, as well as bankruptcy trustees seeking to recover assets.

The abolition of the "peak indebtedness" rule will complicate liquidators' tasks, not least its adverse effect on pursuing preferences where it's unclear what forms the single transaction.

Our research shows rescue financing in Australia has been deployed as one element of a broader restructuring strategy, most commonly by an existing stakeholder, rather than as a profitable activity in itself.

As participants in the Australian debt restructuring market continue to innovate we expect to see an increase in these control transactions, testing further again the Australian statutory regimes.